tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post4073489985535282195..comments2024-01-25T09:28:56.610+00:00Comments on Confessions of a skeptic: Paula Kirby - Believers in denialJonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-19117571625478558412009-12-31T09:02:23.157+00:002009-12-31T09:02:23.157+00:00Of course there are the other people who agree wit...Of course there are the other people who agree with AGW (some UEA emails aside) and just don't really care.<br /><br />The argument that the cost to them of reducing climate change is larger than the benefit is one that is never addressed, e.g. Canada becomes a better place to live and grow crops in most models of global warming, so why wouldn't a Canadian say "screw sub-Saharan Africa and Indo-China"?March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-61294810423548406462009-12-14T20:02:52.321+00:002009-12-14T20:02:52.321+00:00Ah, the global conspiracy to hide the truth. You d...Ah, the global conspiracy to hide the truth. You do seem to be going tough all the tactics I described above, aren't you?Jonathan Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-89078829723342913362009-12-14T19:14:44.986+00:002009-12-14T19:14:44.986+00:00"...of necessity we have to take certain thin..."...of necessity we have to take certain things on the word of others."<br /><br />Of course we do. And when we pass those opinions along to other people, the correct way to do it is not to assert them as fact but to cite your sources and explain why you find them convincing. Otherwise you are abusing the trust your readers have in you.<br /><br />Incidentally, I'm not sure how science can be 'superseded'. Are you saying these papers are wrong, and if so, why? I don't find them so old, either -- in the first ten we have 2007, 2008, 2000, 2009, 2006... <br /><br />Given the difficulties put in the way of AGW sceptics publishing by the AGW establishment, as now revealed through the Climategate papers, it's remarkable and encouraging that this many papers have seen the light of day at all.Jon Jermeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12802157835972797573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-2062000093029559752009-12-13T13:54:31.035+00:002009-12-13T13:54:31.035+00:00jonj
I looked at your list. It is very partial, an...jonj<br />I looked at your list. It is very partial, and it consists to a considerable extent of papers that are quite old, and have been superseded by better and more recent observations. What you are doing with that list is one of the things I described above. You are cherry-picking favourable evidence and ignoring unfavourable evidence.<br /><br />You quite correctly state that science is based on evidence. That is why the consensus of people who don't know anything of the subject doesn't matter. The evidence is not perfect, but the balance of the evidence in favour of the existence of man-made climate change is pretty conclusive - even given the cherry-picked list of contrary opinions you provided.<br /><br />It is true that neither of us is a climate scientist and therefore an expert in the field. We can't be everywhere and know everything from first-hand experience, and so of necessity we have to take certain things on trust on the word of others.<br /><br />In doing so, we have to make decisions concerning the basis on which we give that trust. Many people trust others on the basis of whether they are expressing opinions they already agree with. I try not to do that. Instead, I try as best as possible to see who is looking to find out the trust, and I trust them. For that reason, I tend to trust the professional opinions of scientists, and moreover I tend to trust the consensus of those professional opinions, because I know something about how that consensus is arrived at.Jonathan Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-82075455950027939272009-12-13T08:50:10.876+00:002009-12-13T08:50:10.876+00:00Silly. Are you a climatologist? Do you know how to...Silly. Are you a climatologist? Do you know how to verify the assumptions behind the models which predict global warming? In this area you are as naive as any religious believer, choosing to flock behind a particular pastor because you like the emotional implications of what he says. (And these scientists are nearly always men -- another link between faith in AGW and religious faith. Perhaps women are better at maintaining a balanced view.)<br /><br />Science is not based on 'consensus'. Science is based on evidence. A substantial amount of evidence against AGW has been put forward. You can find some of it here: <br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/y9jrjaf<br /><br />You can choose to believe some or all or none of it as you wish, but you are in no position to assert that you know better. In asserting the truth of AGW you are simply parroting the opions you have received from others and have no way of verifying on your own.<br /><br />Please stick to writing about what you know about, or you run the risk of casting doubt on your competence in those fields too. And that also goes for Paula Kirby, who as far as I know has the same qualifications in climate science as you do.Jon Jermeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12802157835972797573noreply@blogger.com